DOCSLIB.ORG

The Urban Process Under Distinct Accumulation Regimes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Urban Process Under Distinct Accumulation Regimes The Urban Process Under Distinct Accumulation Regimes: A Research Strategy MARSHALL M. A. FELDMAN June 3, 2015 Center for Urban Studies and Research and The Charles T. Schmidt, Jr. Labor Research Center The University of Rhode Island 36 Upper College Road Kingston, RI 02881 USA t: 01.874.5953 f: 01.874.2954 e: [email protected] Paper presented at Regulation Theory in Times of Crisis — Research & Regulation Conference université Paris-Diderot, June 10-12, 2015 Rev. 6 The Urban Process Under Distinct Accumulation Regimes: A Research Strategy Abstract This paper demonstrates a research strategy for the theoretical investigation of capitalist crises. It draws upon a particular technique (computer simulation), complementary theoretical approaches (regulation, monetary and capital circuits, and capital switching in the urban process), and multiple disciplines (economics, geography, and urban studies). It starts with David Harvey’s classic theory of capital switching to the built environment as a temporary spatial fix to crises. Although this theory has been very influential, it has limitations in its attention to detail, its treatment of money, and its failure to allow for modes of regulation underpinning distinct accumulation regimes. The paper addresses these issues by using computer simulation to integrate regulation theory and monetary circuit theory with Harvey’s theory. Instead of a general “urban process under capitalism,” the study develops simulation models calibrated to (1) Fordism and (2) financialized neoliberalism. By contrasting their results, the paper demonstrates the strategy’s viability and the value of combining the approaches. Key Words: accumulation regime crises, capital switching, computer simulation, monetary circuit, urbanization Résumé Cet article illustre une stratégie de recherche pour l’étude théorique des crises capitalistes. Elle se fonde sur une technique particulière (simulation par ordinateur), les approches théoriques complémentaires (règlement, circuit monétaire et le capital de commutation dans le processus urbain) et plusieurs disciplines (économie, géographie et études urbaines). Il commence par la théorie classique de David Harvey de commutation capital dans l’environnement bâti comme un repère spatial temporaire aux crises. Bien que cette théorie ait été très influent, il a des limites dans son attention aux détails, son traitement de l’argent et son incapacité à prévoir des modes de régulation qui sous-tendent les régimes d’accumulation distincts. Cet article aborde ces problèmes en utilisant une simulation sur ordinateur pour intégrer la théorie de règlement et de la théorie du circuit monétaire avec la théorie de Harvey. Au lieu d’un général "processus urbain sous le capitalisme", l’étude développe des modèles de simulation calibrés au (1) fordisme et (2) le néolibéralisme financiarisée. En comparant leurs résultats, cet article démontre la viabilité de la stratégie et la valeur de combiner les approches. Mots clés : crises de régime d’accumulation, la commutation capitale, simulation d’ordinateur, circuit monétaire, l’urbani- sation Overaccumulation within the secondary and tertiary circuits often acts as a trigger for more general crises. The importance of this is all too often neglected in general accounts of the dynamics of capital accumulation ... the most important prop to the US and British economies after the onset of the general recession in all other sectors from mid-2001 onwards was the continued speculative vigour in the property and housing markets and construction. ... What happens if and when this property bubble bursts is a matter for serious concern. Harvey (2005, 112-113) 1 The Urban Process and the Circuit of Capital David Harvey’s theory of capital switching and the urban process is based on Marx’s political-economic writing, especially Volume II of Capital. Harvey starts with Marx’s famous diagram of the circulation capital presented early in Volume II M −CfMP, LPg ... (P) ...C0 − M0 because it has potent geographical implications and seeks to uncover “any underlying unity” and contradictions contained within the circulation of capital (Harvey 2006b, 405). This is partly, but only partly, because the metamorphosis from one form of capital to another often requires spatial proximity. Moreover, space and time are intimately linked, with space presenting a barrier to capital, adding to its turnover time, and decreasing the rate of profit.1 Various features of developed capitalism, such as the credit system, can relax such constraints and allow capitalism’s spatial scale to expand. But the means of circulation, particularly physical and social infrastructure, have even stronger implications. Generally they are themselves forms of capital and are therefore their circulation and metamorphoses resemble those of other forms of capital, but they differ in important ways. Infrastructure is generally spatially fixed and involves exceptionally large amounts of capital, and because its turnover time is typically much longer than that of most ordinary commodity capital, the applicable time-span for infrastructure is much longer, and is likely to involve more complex and varied paths of circulation. But physical (urban) infrastructure is not the only form capital take that does not conform to the circuit Marx investigated extensively in Volumes II and III. Harvey mentions fixed capital, the consumption fund (long-lived items of consumption), science and technology, administration (generally by the state), and (repressive and productivity-enhancing) social infrastructures (also generally located within or related to the state). Capital flows through all these different forms, and the flows themselves can be coordinated by a standardized interest rate. But since the latter constitutes a web of “fictional relationships,” “real value creation” depends actual flows of value through these circuits and on their overall mutual articulation, with each flow having its own temporal rhythms and requirements and distinct spatialities(Harvey 2006b, 407-8). Figure 1 is Harvey’s summary of the paths these flows of value follow. 1“Capital by its nature drives beyond every spatial barrier. Thus the creation of the physical conditions of exchange – of the means of communication and transport – the annihilation of space by time – becomes extraordinarily necessary for it” (Marx 1993, Notebook V). 2 Figure 1: The paths of capital flow. Source: Harvey (2006b, 208). The spatial properties of these flows vary, and different kinds of flows have different mobilities. Harvey’s analysis is a bit functionalist in that shifts among the flows in the system allows capitalism to adapt “to the task of shaping spatial organization and flows to long-run aggregative requirements” (Harvey 2006a, 407). Also note that he assumes a degree of “conservation of value,” or “exogenous money,” in that credit depends on prior savings and accumulation of capital. Thus for infrastructure to receive capital: There must be surplus capital and a form of organization – usually the state ... – capable of centralizing the surplus capital, putting it into the creation of certain use values, and waiting several years before reaping any reward. This also implies a conscious recognition and anticipation of capitalism’s future needs (Harvey 2006b, 409). Harvey divides the circuits in Figure 1 into three groups. Organized vertically, the “primary circuit” consists of the middle part involving production of values and surplus values and their consumption. Here Harvey claims he follows Marx by tacitly assuming production and consumption occurs within one time period (Harvey 1978, 104). The top of the figure represents the “secondary circuit” and involves the built environment as well as producer and consumer durables. Finally, the bottom represents the “tertiary circuit” of capital, which has two components. On the production side, it includes investments in science and technology, which can increase productivity in production through technological advance or open up new venues for capital accumulation by the creation of new products. On the consumption side, social 3 expenditures either improve the quality of labor power for capital (“human capital”) or control it. The secondary circuit is most important here.2 Although Harvey lumps four distinct categories together in the secondary circuit, they differ substantially (Table 1). Producer and consumer durables are both generally produced under capitalist conditions and sold as commodities, but otherwise they differ substantially. Through depreciation, the value of producer durables, such as tools and machines, enter into the value of other commodities in whose production processes the durables are used. Because they enhance the productivity of labor, technological innovation can devalue existing producer durables. If computer numerical control (CNC) technology renders an ordinary cutting machine obsolete, capitalist enterprises owning the old machines must either upgrade their technology or find themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage. On the supply side, producers of consumer durables innovate to gain advantage over competitors, while on the demand side, competition among buyers of consumer durables drives their demand for such durables. Such innovation can devalue existing producer durables, and partly because of this, there are substantial lease/rental markets for producer durables. Nonetheless, if a firm can purchase a devalued, used producer durable at low cost, is willing and able to accept lower profits,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Transformation Problem As a Problem of Fetishism
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2019 The Transformation Problem as a Problem of Fetishism Lange, Elena L Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-184016 Journal Article Published Version Originally published at: Lange, Elena L (2019). The Transformation Problem as a Problem of Fetishism. Filosofski Vestnik, 40(3):51-70. Filozofski vestnik | Volume XL | Number 3 | 2019 | xx–xx Elena Louisa Lange* The Transformation Problem as a Problem of Fetishism ‘The further we trace out the valorization process of capi- tal, the more is the capital relationship mystified and the less are the secrets of its internal organization laid bare.’ Karl Marx1 Introduction: Marx’s Fetishism-Critical Method In the international research of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy of the past decades, it has become fashionable to perform the Bob Dylanesque2 song of “The Rejection of the Labour Theory of Value”, a kind of spoken-word blues with lots of minor chords. The chorus goes like this: “The labour theory of val- ue/ it’s just a residue of the classics”3. The verses tell the story of a “substan- tialist”, “embodied” labour theory of value held by poor forlorn Marx, against his better judgment. The “message” is that we, and our interpretation of Marx, 1 Karl Marx, Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 3. Penguin, London 1981, p. 139. 2 I apologise to all Marxist Bob Dylan-fans, should they exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Z 4 the New Interpretation and the Value of Money Makoto Itoh
    Chapter Z 4 The new interpretation and the value of money Makoto Itoh This chapter examines the significance of the so-called new interpretation of Marx’s theory of transforming values into prices of production in the first section, as well as remaining issues on it in the second section, focusing on its definition of value of money and value of labor-power. As an important shortage of the new interpretation is in the absence of the theory of determining the exchange-value of money, we shall try to fill this gap in the subsequent sections. After assessing Moseley’s analysis of the commodity money in the third section as a corollary, we try to examine the dynamic mechanism through business cycles to determine the exchange-value of money commodity in the fourth section. The fifth section briefly argues what happens to the exchange-value of money in the regime of contemporary non-commodity money. 1 The significance of value of money in the new interpretation A 'new interpretation' on the transformation problem concerning Marx's theory of transforming values into prices of production was presented by Foley (1982, 1986) and Duménile(1983). The new interpretation is based on a particular definition of value of money as the monetary expression of labor time. More concretely, the value of money is conceived as 'the ratio of the net domestic product at current prices to the living productive labor expended in an economy over a period of time' (Foley, 2000:21), and thus it represents the average amount of expended labor time obtainable by a unit of money, say a dollar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Critique of Real Abstraction: from the Critical Theory of Society to the Critique of Political Economy and Back Again
    The Critique of Real Abstraction: from the Critical Theory of Society to the Critique of Political Economy and Back Again Chris O’Kane John Jay, CUNY [email protected] There has been a renewed engagement with the idea of real abstraction in recent years. Scholars associated with the New Reading of Marx, such as Moishe Postone, Chris Arthur, Michael Heinrich, Patrick Murray, Riccardo Bellofiore and others,1 have employed the idea in their important reconstructions of Marx’s critique of political economy. Alberto Toscano, Endnotes, Jason W. Moore and others have utilized and extended these theorizations to concieve of race, gender, and nature as real abstractions. Both the New Reading and these new theories of real abstraction have provided invaluable work; the former in systematizing Marx’s inconsistent and unfinished theory of value as a theory of the abstract social domination of capital accumulation and reproduction; the latter in supplementing such a theory. Yet their exclusive focus on real abstraction in relation to the critique of political economy means that the critical marxian theories of real abstraction -- developed by Alfred Sohn- Rethel, Theodor W. Adorno and Henri Lefebvre -- have been mostly bypassed by the latter and have largely served as the object of trenchant criticism for their insufficient grasp of Marx’s theory of value by the former. Consequently these new readings and new theories of real abstraction elide important aspects of Sohn-Rethel, Adorno and Lefebvre’s critiques of real abstraction; which sought to develop Marx’s critique of political economy into objective-subjective critical theories of the reproduction of capitalist society.2 However, two recent works by 1 Moishe Postone’s interpretation of real abstraction will be discussed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Money As 'Universal Equivalent' and Its Origins in Commodity Exchange
    MONEY AS ‘UNIVERSAL EQUIVALENT’ AND ITS ORIGIN IN COMMODITY EXCHANGE COSTAS LAPAVITSAS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF LONDON [email protected] MAY 2003 1 1.Introduction The debate between Zelizer (2000) and Fine and Lapavitsas (2000) in the pages of Economy and Society refers to the conceptualisation of money. Zelizer rejects the theorising of money by neoclassical economics (and some sociology), and claims that the concept of ‘money in general’ is invalid. Fine and Lapavitsas also criticise the neoclassical treatment of money but argue, from a Marxist perspective, that ‘money in general’ remains essential for social science. Intervening, Ingham (2001) finds both sides confused and in need of ‘untangling’. It is worth stressing that, despite appearing to be equally critical of both sides, Ingham (2001: 305) ‘strongly agrees’ with Fine and Lapavitsas on the main issue in contention, and defends the importance of a theory of ‘money in general’. However, he sharply criticises Fine and Lapavitsas for drawing on Marx’s work, which he considers incapable of supporting a theory of ‘money in general’. Complicating things further, Ingham (2001: 305) also declares himself ‘at odds with Fine and Lapavitsas’s interpretation of Marx’s conception of money’. For Ingham, in short, Fine and Lapavitsas are right to stress the importance of ‘money in general’ but wrong to rely on Marx, whom they misinterpret to boot. Responding to these charges is awkward since, on the one hand, Ingham concurs with the main thrust of Fine and Lapavitsas and, on the other, there is little to be gained from contesting what Marx ‘really said’ on the issue of money.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basic Theory of Capitalism: a Critical Review of Itoh and the Uno School
    The Basic Theory of Capitalism: A Critical Review of Itoh and the Uno School Simon Clarke Makoto Itoh: The Basic Theory of Capitalism: The Forms and Substance of the Capitalist Economy, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1988. 1 The Uno Approach and the Pure Theory of Cap- italism Makoto Itoh's work is well-known to readers of Capital and Class through his long-standing involvement in the CSE. He has now brought together his contributions to the debates on the theory of value and the theory of crisis within a systematic exposition of Marxist theory which brings out clearly the roots of his perspective in the work of Uno. The Uno School is one of the major schools of post-war Japanese Marxism, which came to prominence in the 1960s.1 The Uno approach is marked by a radical neo-Kantian separation of theory from politics, and a fierce opposition to logical-historical interpretations of Capital in favour of a sharp distinction between theoretical and historical analysis. Itoh's book is important in making the Uno approach more accessible to an English speaking readership by relating its perspective directly to the recent English language debates. Although Itoh revises and develops the Uno approach, particularly in his concern to give the theory a greater political and historical relevance, he retains the essential methodological and theoretical foundations of the Uno approach. While Itoh's contribution is of considerable interest in its own right, in this article I intend to focus on these foundations as the basis of a critique of Itoh's book. The methodological foundations of the Uno school lie in the radical sepa- ration of three levels of analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Transformation from Marx to Sraffa Anwar Shaikh
    3 The Transformation from Marx to Sraffa Anwar Shaikh I. Introduction Recent history has seen a tremendous revival of Marxist economic analysis. But this process has also produced its own specific problems, because as Marxist economics gain in respectibility, the temptation to represent itself i~ respectable terms grows accordingly. And these terms, in the end, are ·almost always the wrong ones. There is no question but that Marxism must appropriate all modem developments. Bur to appropriate them involves much more than merely adopting them. It involves tearing them out of the bourgeois framework in which they appear, examining their hidden premises, and re-situating them (when and if possible) on a Marxist terrain-a terrain which cannot be derived merely by algebraic variation or sociological transformation of the premises of orthodox economics. We must, and indeed we do, have our own ground to stand upon. It is my contention that the Sraffian, neo-Ricardian, tradition is by far too respectable. Its roots in left Keynesianism are easy to establish, and its refuge in mathematical economics is quite revealing. Nonetheless, the claims made by this school must be addressed, and· its real contributions must be separated out from what is merely part of its cloak of respectability. In this paper I do not intend to reproduce previous criticisms of the neo-Ricardians, nor even to reproduce my own arguments in favour of Marx's theory of value. Instead, in the discussion that follows I would like to show that even within the algebraic framework of which the neo-Ricardians are so proud, there are a host of issues which they do not, and cannot, face.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Labour and the Use-Value of Human Work. on the Importance of Labouring Capacity for Understanding Digital Capitalism1
    tripleC 12(2): 599–619, 2014 http://www.triple-c.at Digital Labour and the Use-value of Human Work. On the Importance of Labouring Capacity for Understanding Digital Capitalism1 Sabine Pfeiffer University of Hohenheim and ISF Munich, Germany, www.sabine-pfeiffer.de Abstract: On the face of its virtual and immaterial appearance, digital labour often is seen as a phe- nomenon of abstract work. Contrary to that common understanding, in Marx’s theory the abstraction of labour derives from its historical development into a commodity, splitting human work as all commodi- ties into use-value and exchange-value. Thus the process of abstraction is of economical logic, and not to be explained or characterized by the virtual and immaterial quality that is typical for the means and objects of digital labour. In his early work Marx differentiates between living labouring capacity (Arbeitsvermögen) as the use-value of human work and labour power as its objectified form to be ex- changed. In the tradition of Marx’s Grundrisse Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge in Geschichte und Eigensinn pointed to the dialectical relationship between the use-value and exchange-value of labour, revealing how labour on its use-value side ‟contains and reproduces capacities and energies that ex- ceed its realisation in/as commodity”, extending the model of labour power ‟to a whole range of physi- ological, sexual, social, and national relations” (Negt and Kluge 1993a, xxxiii). While these qualitative and material as well as corporeal aspects of human work are still visible in industrial production pro- cesses, they seem to be vanished in virtual work environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Keynes and Marx by Claudio Sardoni University of Rome “La Sapienza”
    Keynes and Marx by Claudio Sardoni University of Rome “La Sapienza” I. Introduction Soon after the publication of The General Theory, Keynes manifested his dissatisfaction with the ‘final product’ of the intellectual process which had started in 1931-32 and he stated an intention to re-cast his ideas in a clearer and more satisfactory way. Joan Robinson thought that starting from Marx, rather than orthodox economics, would have saved Keynes ‘a lot of trouble’ (1964: 96). The object of this chapter is to inquire into the possibility that Keynes could have re-written The General Theory by giving Marx more attention and more credit than he did in the 1936 edition of the book. The interest in this issue does not derive, however, from any evidence that Keynes changed his opinion of Marx after 1936: it remained highly critical. Such interest rather derives from the fact that, in the quest for a clearer formulation of his fundamental ideas, Keynes, in my opinion, could have chosen to go, at least partly, ‘back’ to the approach that he had followed earlier on in the process which led to the publication of The General Theory. In fact, at a relatively early stage (1933) of this process, Keynes’s analysis of a capitalist economy and his critique of the orthodox view had come close to Marx’s approach. Keynes soon abandoned his 1933 approach and, in The General Theory, he formulated the critique of orthodox economics in a different way from Marx. In the chapter, I argue that the reason for the change may be found in the fact that the economic theory criticised by Keynes was significantly different from the Ricardian theory to which Marx referred.
    [Show full text]
  • Torrence, Ryan MRP.Pdf (404.7Kb)
    Running head: MARXIST CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL HEALTH POLICY TOWARDS AN ORTHODOX MARXIST CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL HEALTH POLICY RYAN TORRENCE Supervisor’s Name: Claudia Chaufan Advisor’s Name: Dennis Pilon Supervisor’s Signature: ___________________________ Date Signed: ___________________________ Advisor’s Signature: ___________________________ Date Signed: ___________________________ A Research Paper submitted to the Graduate Program in Health in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Program in Health York University Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 August 2020 MARXIST CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL HEALTH POLICY 1 Introduction Critical health policy researchers have, over the past few decades, shown beyond doubt the connection between socioeconomic inequalities and disparities in health and disease outcomes. The evidence is strong enough that mainstream outlets like the World Health Organization now acknowledge the centrality of the social determinants of health. However, researchers and activists have largely been frustrated in their attempts to mobilize this knowledge into practice. By most accounts, social health inequalities are increasing on intranational and global scales, especially following the 2008 economic crisis (Cash-Gibson, et al., 2018). The present Covid-19 pandemic – which has caused unemployment levels to rise to historic heights in most advanced economies – has made understanding the connection between socioeconomics and individual health even more urgent. The concept of health inequality as a field of study emerged alongside the pioneers of the socialist tradition; Frederick Engels’ 1845 The Condition of the Working Class in England is a seminal work in the field, and his lifelong collaborator Karl Marx elaborated at length the deleterious (physical, psychological, and spiritual) effects of capitalism on the lower classes.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on the "Transformation Problem"'
    SOME NOTES ON THE "TRANSFORMATION PROBLEM"' THE debate initiated by Bohm-Bawerkon the alleged " great contradic- tion " between Volume I and Volume III of Marx's Capital has by no means been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. In one form or another, and with various degrees of sophistication, a number of aspects of the question continue to be hotly disputed to-day. In particular, literature on the so-called " transformation problem" has multiplied considerably since Paul Sweezy drew the attention of English-speaking readers to it in 1946 in his Theoryof CapitalistDevelopment.2 The present article sets out to do three things. First, it examines Marx's own discussion of the transformation of " values " into " prices of produc- tion," dealing in particular with the meaning which ought properly to be ascribed to his famous statement that " total values equal total prices of production." Second, it reviews two solutions of the " transformation problem " which have recently been put forward, and suggests an alternative method of solution which (it is submitted) illustrates more effectively than the others the essential point which Marx was trying to make. Third, it says something about an important gap in Marx's argument which still remains after the " transformationproblem" has been solved. " Profit ", wrote Marx, " is . that disguise of surplus-value which must be removed before the real nature of surplus-value can be discovered. In the surplus-value, the relation between capital and labour is laid bare." 3 In Volume I of Capital, therefore, Marx presents us with an analysis of surplus value stripped of its disguise.
    [Show full text]
  • Production, Circulation and Value 24 5
    Product ion, circulation and value: the significance of the 'transformation problem' in Marx's Critique of Political Economy Ira Gerstein Economy and Society,vol.5 n°3,1976 Abstract The Marxian transformation problem is usually thought of as bridging the transition from 'essence' (value) to 'phenomena' or surface (prices). This paper shows that such a conception is incorrect. The transformation is actually between two theoretical levels of the construction of the economic region of the capitalist mode of production. The first of these levels is production in itself (Capital, Volume I), while the second is the complex unity of production and circulation (Capital, Volume 111). This theoretical construction is complicated for two reasons: (l)despite the fact that production is the dominant instance, the social relationships of commodity production appear only in circulation; (2) circulation categories appear implicitly even at the level of production in itself: These considerations establish the transformation problem at the heart of a correct conception of the capitalist mode of production, Thus the sharpest distinctions between neo-Ricardianism, vulgar Marxism and Marxism can be drawn here. In particular, it is shown that a correct appreciation of the transformation problem proves the inadequacy of an instrumentalist conception of the state since, at least in this area, bourgeois class interest arises only at the level of class and is not the sum of individual interests (even over a subgroup of the class). Finally, the transformation problem itself is reviewed in detail. Mathematical results are separated from the essentials of the problem which are shown to lie in the correct choice of normalization, a choice that insures the transformation will actually be from value to modified value and not from value to price.
    [Show full text]
  • Marx's Theory of Money: Modern Appraisals
    11 The New Interpretation and the Value of Money Makoto Itoh1 This chapter examines the significance of the so-called new interpretation of Marx’s theory of transforming values into prices of production in the first section, as well as remaining related issues in the second section, focusing on the definitions of the value of money and the value of labour-power. Since an important shortcoming of the new interpretation is the absence of any theory of the exchange-value of money, we shall try to fill this gap in the subsequent sections. After assessing Moseley’s analysis of the value and exchange-value of commodity money in the third section as a corollary, the chapter examines the dynamic mechanism through business cycles to deter- mine the exchange-value of money commodity in the fourth section. The fifth section briefly explores what happens to the exchange-value of money in the regime of contemporary non-commodity money. 1 The significance of the value of money in the new interpretation A ‘new interpretation’ of Marx’s theory of transforming values into prices of production was presented by Foley (1982, 1986) and Duménil (1983). The new interpretation is based on a particular definition of the value of money as the monetary expression of labour time. More concretely, the value of money is conceived as ‘the ratio of the net domestic product at current prices to the living productive labor expended in an economy over a period of time’ (Foley 2000: 21), and thus it represents the average amount of expended labour time obtainable by a unit of money (say, a dollar).
    [Show full text]